First flight in a glass cockpit and high performance. Some thoughts...

[jspilot]

Yesterday I went for a flight in a glass cockpit G1000 c182. It was the first time I've ever flown a 182 and the first time I've ever flown a G1000 equipped airplane. A couple of things occurred to me.

First, the G1000 is an amazing piece of avionics. This particular plane was equipped with XM weather and had a traffic alert system. I'm use to the old school see and avoid method when it comes to traffic avoidance and with the on board traffic, it really felt almost like cheating. The traffic feature does wonders for situational awareness ad sporting other aircraft was much easier do to the fact that it told me the relative position and altitude of the traffic. Truly an amazing addition to the cockpit. The other thing that struck me was the glass cockpit made my errors seem more "huge". There is just something about the number of altitude or speed being an exact number that made me notice my 50 foot altitude deviations or 10 knot speed differences. As a result I found myself looking at the instruments way more than I usually do. I kept wanting the altitude to be exact or the heading to be exactly on. For this reason I could see why I've read people cautioning new students from learning to fly on the glass cockpit. I now agree with that because learning on steam gauges makes you look outside more. I'm not sure why but I never had that same sensation to peg an altitude or heading precisely, I think because the steam gauge, while telling you you're 50 feet off altitude does not give you the same numerical value as the glass cockpit does. I found it harder to ignore errors in the glass cockpit which may in fact be a good thing, but I know if I had learned in the glass cockpit I would have felt like a much bigger failure. Might just be me...

The 182 was a great airplane to fly. I did notice the horsepower difference but the flying was very comparable to the 172 I'm use to flying. Two big differneces I noticed were the amount of control inputs required were much heavier on the 182 and landing differences. The 182 I flew had electric trim which was new to me and a blessing. I felt like the elevator was "heavy" and required way more back pressure than the 172. The instructor I flew with said that may be a result of the newer airplane feel- the 172's I fly from the same place are well used 12 year old planes as opposed to the 182 which is a brand new plane to the school and lightly used before that. However, I really needed to use trim and apply real control inputs throughout the flight. Landing was also similar in that I really had to pull back to keep the nose from dropping. Once I cut power, man did that nose drop! My instructor said that the heavy nose on the 182 makes the drop much greater than the 172. I can totally attest to that being a fact. Honestly, the touchdown part of the landing felt almost the same but I did feel that the 182 landed a bit firmer( although might have been caused by my first time flying a High performance plane.)

All and all a great experience! I'm going to get my high performance endorsement out of this plane after a few more flights just so I can make use of the flight time. This plane is certainly a massive step up from the 172's I'm flying now in terms of technology and capability!

 

[MAKG1]

The control forces in a 182 are heavier because there is a big-*** spring in the circuit that a 172 doesn't have. It makes it A LOT more stable and easier to trim.

Your experience with the G1000 eyeball-sucking is quite similar to mine with an Aspen panel. I disagree that the glass is "more intuitive." The large AI means you can look at other stuff without leaving the AI, but you don't use that much VFR, do you? There isn't much point to an artificial horizon when you can see the real one. Trend lines are really nice. But keeping your eyes outside in VMC requires conscious effort, and it's quite important, substantially more important than keeping your altitude, heading and airspeed excessively precise under VFR.

Remember that the information is not "better" or even "different." It is presented in a different manner, but it is the same information you get with steam gauges. And TCAS can't see birds or NORDO aircraft.

 

[somorris]

I have flown a little in a glass C-182 similar to the one you described. I find (as I do with a digital watch) that the G1000 requires that I look at the number and register what the panel is saying. With analog type gages (steam gages), while flying along in cruise, I usually just glance at the gage and note the position of the pointer. Only if the pointer is not where I expect it to be do I then actually read the number and decide what to do about it. I haven't made up my mind yet which I prefer.

The traffic feature is great. the XM weather is great. I am currently studying the G1000 manual to try to get better at the button pushing. A LOT to learn there!

 

[jspilot]

I have flown a little in a glass C-182 similar to the one you described. I find (as I do with a digital watch) that the G1000 requires that I look at the number and register what the panel is saying. With analog type gages (steam gages), while flying along in cruise, I usually just glance at the gage and note the position of the pointer. Only if the pointer is not where I expect it to be do I then actually read the number and decide what to do about it. I haven't made up my mind yet which I prefer.

The traffic feature is great. the XM weather is great. I am currently studying the G1000 manual to try to get better at the button pushing. A LOT to learn there!

You know I think you nailed the reason why I was trying to be so precise with alt and heading on the glass cockpit because the numbers were registering in my mind as exact reflections of how far off I was. I agree that when flying steam gauges that as long as the needle is close to my intended altitude I'm ok- its only when it's not close that I notice. 25 feet off on the needle does not register in my mind the way 25 feet off in numbers registers. Thanks for helping me see what I was experiencing clearer.

 

[MAKG1]

(?) Not trying to be rude but think about it for a moment, how do you get things like terrain and airspace on a mechanical dial instrument? ...

You use these fancy newfangled things called "windows" and "charts." This is VFR flying. IFR is a different beast. Eyes outside the aircraft as much as possible.

Separately, a certified GPS can give you the same information without the glass panel, even IFR. It's all in a Garmin 430, for instance. A 430 is far less of an eyeball magnet.

Garmin interfaces are, as a rule, terrible. Effort spent does not necessarily translate to quality.

 

[dmspilot]

You use these fancy newfangled things called "windows" and "charts." This is VFR flying. IFR is a different beast.

...

Garmin interfaces are, as a rule, terrible. Effort spent does not necessarily translate to quality.

Someone gets it. Nothing about the G1000 is "intuitive."

With analog type gages (steam gages), while flying along in cruise, I usually just glance at the gage and note the position of the pointer.

Not only that, but you can also glance quickly and detect the speed of movement of the pointer.

Human factors research has shown the most effective instrument presentation is a fixed scale with a moving pointer along with a digital readout (e.g. round dial with digits in the center). That fact has been ignored in favor of more fashionable presentations.

 

[MAKG1]

Not to overstate the point, I do see much value to a G1000 or Aspen in IMC, where you don't want your eyes outside the aircraft. The instrument scan is more compact and more integrated. But it encourages too much staring in VMC. Particularly for terrain. You neither need nor want an artificial representation of anything when the real thing is usable. When the real thing is not usable (IMC), that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

 

[Velocity173]

After awhile you'll get used to looking out more. I've flown a B407 with Chelton glass for over a year now and have gotten used to looking out and not zeroing in on the displays. The bells and whistles are nice though. About a month ago I was head to head with a T-39 on the VR route. The only warning was the Chelton and the Garmin yelling "Traffic! Traffic!" He ended up passing about 700 ft directly below me. Great having that kind of additional SA available. XM weather is awesome, however you'll see in summer months a pretty good delay in thunderstorm travel and development. Still, I can estimate with pretty good accuracy where the storms will be based on my XM weather.

Once you get used to glass you'll never want to go back. When our aircraft is down for maintenance we fly a spare with steam and no gadgets. I feel naked without my toys. I even have Blue Mountain glass in the Velocity. When that breaks I'll upgrade to Dynon. Also it's not just about capability, IMO it presents a cleaner more modern look.

 

[LifeInverted]

Electric trim is nice but it took me awhile to get to the point where I liked it.. I love the feel with manual trim, alot easier to be precise in my opinion.

 

[DTBorden]

I'm glad you had the opportunity. The "glass" instrumentation is impressive, bordering on "information overload" in a GA aircraft. My own experience began with my B-747-400 type rating after many years with conventional instruments and radios. At the time the airplane wasn't yet delivered, consequently I never flew the -400 and was returned to the B-747-200. Reverting to the conventional instruments was like coming home, no problems at all. Later I typed in the B-767/757, what I referred to as "half-glassed", and even with the brief introduction in the -400 it required about 6 months to begin to feel comfortable. After four years on the 767/757 I again returned to the 747-200 and again, like a pair of favorite old shoes, an easy fit.

Since that time I made the questionable choice to convert two small airplanes to the Aspen system. My feelings now are that the advanced avionics are a boon to larger aircraft being operated by two qualified pilots with defined areas of responsibility during any given operation. That is, the pilot flying (PF) calls for the desired configuration and the pilot not flying (PNF) executes that action. Each is acutely aware of the other's actions and intent. For a single pilot there seems to be a lot of data flying at you and you're trying to prioritize that data while managing the airplane. And the truth is, in a typical GA airplane we have neither the speed nor the complexity of the airplane to necessitate that level of technology. Our weather minimums don't change; there certainly is an improvement in navigational accuracy, but not enough better than the conventional systems. Remembering my first take-off in my upgrade, I was very happy to have those three obligatory standby instruments beside the glass.

Please don't misunderstand that I'm against progress. I love technology, misdirected and misused as it sometimes seems. I really enjoy this re-learning process, and I can well understand the economic aspect of the improved maintenance issues in the advanced systems. The people at Aspen are outstanding in their service. I'd enjoy reading comments of other's experiences, and my apology for somewhat wandering off thread.